---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator


Contents:
  Winners Circle (Grain vs Extract) (Mike Fertsch)
  Hop growing question ??????? (Jim White)
  US formulations of imported beers (Bob Devine  26-Jun-1991 0843)
  Please add me to the mailing list. (ACS_JAMES)
  Flavors (Paul Schmidt)
  What's *in* that beer? (Steve Kirkish)
  Cold Filtering Debunked  (hersh)
  Cold Filtering (C.R. Saikley)
  Help with Mabi brew (RJS153)
  coatings on kegs (Marty Albini)
  Aerating worts (Don McDaniel)
  Mashing time (John Freeman)
  beginner's & cat's meow questions (Greg Pryzby)
  cutting & miller (chip upsal)


Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmi at hplabs.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmi at hplabs.hp.com
[Please do not send me requests for back issues]
Archives are available from netlib at mthvax.cs.miami.edu


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 10:03 EDT
From: Mike Fertsch <FERTSCH at adc1.adc.ray.com>
Subject: Winners Circle (Grain vs Extract)

Let me put  in my 2 cents on the "Winner's Circle" recipes and the Grain vs
Extract discussion.  I agree that there are as many extract recipes in this
book as grain recipes.  This may indicate that extract beers are as "good"
as grain beers. 

OTOH, most of these recipes are OLD.  All-grain brewing has become popular
only in the last few years.  I estimate that three or four years ago, 80
percent of all competiton ENTRIES were extract beers.  I'm surprised that
only 50 percent of the WINNERS are extract.  The simple fact that 50
percent of the beers in this book are extract beers does not tell us much
about quality of grain or extract recipes.  Winners from recent competitons
(check Zymurgy) are almost exlusively all-grain beers.  I guess that more 
than half of today's entries are all-grain beers.

I conclude that looking at competiton winners tells us about the
popular fads in brewing.  It is difficult to derermine good versus bad 
sources of fermentable sugar.

I've been judging homebrews for a long time (5 years, I think?!).  Homebrew
has improved significantly since then.  IMHO, the beers that won
competitions a few years ago would not do well today.  I'd think twice 
about blindly adopting recipes from Winners Circle.  I should know, I 
have a few swill recipes in the Winners Circle book.

Mike Fertsch


Return to table of contents


Date:    Wed, 26 Jun 91 10:40:59 EDT
From: JWHITE at maine.maine.edu (Jim White)
Subject: Hop growing question ???????

I planted 4 hop rhizomes (2 Cascade, 1 Willamette, 1 Mt.Hood) about the
middle of May. To date just 1 (The Willamette) has broken the surface.

I feel certain that I prepared the soil, and planted the rhizomes
appropriately. I am aware that the vines won't produce buds this
year, but am surprised that it has taken so long to surface.

Does it typically take 5-6 weeks for signs of life? Should I be concerned?

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 07:50:12 PDT
From: Bob Devine 26-Jun-1991 0843 <devine at cookie.enet.dec.com>
Subject: US formulations of imported beers

Mark W Castleman writes:
>	Another bit of antecdotal evidence on beers tasting different here than
> on their home turf.  Two years ago I took the Carlsberg tour in Copenhagen.
> I was told that the Carlsberg, Tuborg, Elephant etc. which is shipped here to
> the USA is made according to a completely different recipe than the stuff
> made in Denmark for domestic consumption.

There are several other examples of different formulations of the same
named beer.  Everyone has probably heard that the Guinness stout exported
is different that the native recipe in Ireland (exported has higher alcohol,
for example, because Irish tax laws on beer is based on alcohol content).

Another, not as well known, example is Beck's.  I've heard that the US
marketed version has some corn as an adjunct because it, like Carlsburg,
was perceived as too malty for the average consumer.  Sigh.

Bob "living in the land of `malt liquors'" Devine

Return to table of contents


Date:    Wed, 26 Jun 1991 11:41:56 EDT
From: ACS_JAMES at VAX2.ACS.JMU.EDU
Subject: Please add me to the mailing list.


Please add ACS_JAMES at VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU to the mailing list.  I've sent several
messages to homebrew-request but have not been added.

Thanks,
James W. Wilson

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 11:44:46 EDT
From: prs at titan.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Flavors

I haven't brewed anything yet (perhaps later this summer
or early fall?), and I'm trying to get an idea of what
kind of beer to try first.

I've been reading lots of descriptions of beer flavors
(hoppy, sweet, esters, etc.) but I don't really know
what they all _mean_. Can someone post a description
of the major flavor 'spectrums', and name a commercially
available beer that would represent the presence or
absence of that particular flavor? For example, I 
understand that Molson Golden is a hoppy beer; is there 
a similarly-flavored beer without as much hops that I 
could try next to it? And so forth...?

Thanks in advance!


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1991 08:56:23
From: kla!kirkish at Sun.COM (Steve Kirkish)
Subject: What's *in* that beer?


I've been reading with interest the recent entries about Big-
Breweries' and their alleged additives, creating a chemical soup
that tastes almost, but not completely, unlike beer ;-).  I dug out
my 1988 copy of CAMRA's "Good Beer Guide" (a definitive guide,
IMHO, and indispensable in the UK...) and turned to page 144 for
an entry entitled "Foreign Bodies", by Roger Protz.  He mentions
in particular Miller Lite, "described as 'the nearest thing to an
empty glass'", and discusses how American legislation (at one
time) forced the makers to list their ingredients: "propylene
glycol alginate, water, barley malt, corn syrup, chemically
modified hop extracts (there ya go), yeast, amyloglucosidase,
carbon dioxide (!), papain enzyme (clarifier, I believe), liquid
sugar, potassium metabisulphite, and Emkamalt".  Public outcries
forced Miller to drop it's use of additives, the report goes on
to say. It is brewed under license in Britain by Courage.  The author 
considers this to be a happy example of what the British big-
brewers should follow.

He goes on to describe the effects of these and other additives
(available from your local chemistry set):  propylene glycol
alginate is added to lager and keg beers to lend a "commercially
attractive but fake head"; amyloglucosidase and aspergillus niger
are used to balance enzyme deficiencies; hypochlorite, bleach,
ozone, giberellic acid and bromate can speed germination and
starch extraction; and silicone anti-foam reduces the yeast head
in fermentation vessels to "squeeze in more liquid".

The upshot is to not only make beer drinkers aware of what might
be in that bottle, but to also suggest that ingredients go back
on the label.  If ya got nothing to hide, why not show it?

Fortunately, these additives are not necessary to the taste of a
homebrew, and their probably not cost effective.  I am no
chemist, but I have a feeling that most of the ingredients above
might be organic extracts and most may not be unhealthy.  As the
cartoon at the end of the article states, with the bartender
telling a guy at the bar with a "Gents" room beyond, "Not many
people hang on to it long enough to worry about the ingredients".

So, don't worry, relax, have a homebrew!
(And apologies and thanks to CAMRA and Roger Protz for the
excerpts.)

- -- Steve Kirkish

Disclaimer:  These opinions, which belong to me, are mine.
             So Relax.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 13:05:32 EDT
From: hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Cold Filtering Debunked 


Gee what is cold filtering you ask??
Well in just about any brewery larger than your kitchen the beer is filtered
prior to bottling or serving. Since Miller brews Lager beers the beer is
already cold. A typical step before filtering is cold conditioning, where the
beer is "aged", basically let sit at temperatures in the low 30s. This can also
be known as lagering, though cold conditioning is typically for just long
enough to let yeast sediment out of solution, while lagering can go on for many
months. Either way the beer is cold at this point, and from what I understand 
keeping it cold during bottling helps the CO2 stay in solution.

So as far as I can determine, cold filtering is something Miller has done for
as long as they've used filters, made lager, and bottled it. It's just a new
name for something that a lot of breweries do. Miller probably trademarked it
first though so no one else can use it.

As far as "clean" room procedures, many other brewers use some or all of these
techniques (clean rooms with microbial air filters, sterilant bath before
entering filter room, etc..)

Oh yeah, the reason some brewers don't pasteurize is cause they use a finer
(and more $$) filter that gets out not just the yeast, but also bacteria, which
are smaller. 

On a related note, Joe mentioned Miller 100% Barley Draft, well Matt's of Utica
has been making Saranac, an all-malt American Pilsener for some time. While
other Matt's products (except the contract brews) are pretty much swill the 
Saranac is respectable American pilsener.


JaH

Tonto - the Lone Rangers side kick, literally means fool
Quemosabe - What Tonto called the Lone Ranger, a contraction of 
		"Quein No Sabe" literally One who knows nothing


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 10:13:31 PDT
From: grumpy!cr at uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley)
Subject: Cold Filtering


Just to add to the discussion of cold filtering.......

I recently heard that those wily Japanese brewers, the very ones who
pioneered the "cold filtering" process, were adding a small number (~1000)
of yeast cells back into each bottle of cold filtered brew. The idea being
that these yeasts would consume whatever oxygen was introduced during the
bottling process, thereby increasing the shelf life. Now imagine that,
filtering out all the yeast, then adding some back in! All this for the sake
of producing a consistently bland beer and keeping it consistently bland
longer.

Pass the Sierra Nevada please,
CR

Return to table of contents


Date: 25 Jun 91 15:15:56 EST
From: RJS153%SYSU at ISS1.AF.MIL
Subject: Help with Mabi brew

Hi All!

A friend of mine is from Puerto Rico, and he wants to make a native brew from
Puerto Rico called "Mabi".  Mabi is a mildly alcoholic brew that uses the bark
from some tree, possibly the Mabi tree.  The wort (I'm new to this, so forgive
me if I use the wrong terms) also has cane sugar, and a sample of someone else'
s Mabi already brewed.  My guess is that this is where the yeast comes from.  M
abi is a real quick fermenter, something on the order of five days, or only thr
ee days if they put it in the sun.  We're in Ohio, so there are not a lot of Ma
bi brewers in the neighborhood.  He needs to either find some Mabi-style yeast
or get a substitute.  What type of yeast could he substitute?

Any help you can provide is appreciated.  If we ever get this off the ground, I
'll be sure to tell everyone how it turns out.

- --Randy-- (and Dave)


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 11:12:34 PDT
From: Marty Albini <martya at sdd.hp.com>
Subject: coatings on kegs

	Sorrty to post this, but mail bounced and I hastily
discarded the alternate address.

> Am looking for a source for some form of paint or coating to apply
> to my SS barrels/kegs that will provide better heat transfer.
> I have heard of such coatings, and seen photos of containers with a
> gray coating on their bottom surfaces.

	To the outside or the inside? If you want to put it on
the inside, you'd be wasting your effort. Direct contact with
the fluid in question is as good as it gets.

	If you want to put it on the outside, there are some
paints you might try, but they wouldn't be much use unless you
want to cool the keg in orbit or something.

	A coating can increase heat transfer by radiation, one
of the three normal mechanisms (the other two being
conduction, where heat flows within a stationary medium, like
a metal; and convection, where heat is carried by a fluid in
motion), but at the expense of the other mechanisms. If you 
turned your keg into a perfect black body (100% emissivity) 
you would get only a microscopic increase in heat transfer at 
the kinds of temperatures normally encountered in brewing.

	Radiative heat transfer varies with the fourth power
of temperature, so things like stars and white-hot pieces of
metal lose most of their heat by radiation, but things like
kegs lose most of their heat by convection. In a vacuum, there
isn't anything to convect or conduct to, so all heat transfer
is by radiation. This is why it's so hard to cool the space
shuttle, and why thermos bottles have a vacuum insulator.

	If you could increase the surface area of the outside
of the keg (by welding on fins, say) you could increase
convection somewhat. To get optimum effect, you'd need fins on
the inside too.

	I assume in all this that you're trying to find a way
to chill kegs quickly. There's another approach: in-line 
chillers called cold plates. The idea is you store the beer 
warm but run it thru a refrigerator or ice chest to cool it on 
the way to the tap. Foxx Equipment sells these for about $125, 
but you could make your own for half that. I've seen them used, 
and they really work.

	A wort chiller stuck inside might work too, but you'd
risk contaminating the keg, and you'd lose some carbonation.

	If you figure something out, let us know! I'd like to
save some time at parties.
						--martya


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 12:53:29 -0600
From: dinsdale at chtm.unm.edu (Don McDaniel)
Subject: Aerating worts

Mike McNally offered his experience with oxygenating wort prior
to pitching and asked for comments.  Here's mine:

First, I like to use the term aerating to preclude any confusion
with oxidation which we all know is undesirable.

Like Mike, my primary reference is Miller.  I used to fan the wort
over the sides of the primary when racking to aerate the wort.  
With this method, I experienced a variety of problems with long
lags, slow or stuck ferments, and high terminal gravities.  So
I tried something akin to what Mike described.  I rack to a carboy
after cooling and allow to sit over night for trub settling.  In the 
morning, I rack to my plastic-bucket primary and pitch.  I don't generally
bother with the fanning procedure anymore.  I take my OG reading
right in the bucket and then use the hydrometer (which is of course
already sanitized) and whip the hell out of the wort.  I do this for
a couple of minutes until my arm gets fatigued and there is a good
head of foam on the wort.  I then seal it, put the fermentation
lock on it and let it go.

This procedure has solved all the aforementioned fermentation
difficulties.  The past seven batches in which I've used this
method have all resulted in quick, clean ferments without any
signs of infection (the additional exposure to bacteria
from the whipping is small and I feel is more than offset by the
shorter lags).

I also apply this to the preparation of starters.  The ten minute boil
is sufficient to drive off most or all the oxygen.  Vigorous swirling
in the starter bottle before fitting the fermentation lock results is
much faster takeoff times.

Don McDaniel


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 17:06:21 CDT
From: jlf at poplar.cray.com (John Freeman)
Subject: Mashing time


I thought I'd add my two cents worth to the discussion of mashing times.
I drew up this PERT chart long ago to determine what could be done in 
parallel.  I have mashed in as little as 3 1/2 hours - I had no homebrew
to drink while I was doing it...  With homebrew, it takes a little longer.

I tried to draw this to scale, each column representing about three minutes,
each task placed approximately where it belongs in time.  The straight line
represents the critical path, the things you cannot hurry: heating,
mashing, boiling, cooling.  One of the best speedups you can make is to
sparge into your boiler while applying heat (at J).

|-5|-30-|------------90---------------|--15-|--------60--------|----20---|-5-|

     D     /----------H------------\     -     /-------------Q     /-T-\        
    / \   /                         \   / \   /               \   /     \       
   C   \ F                           \ K   \ N                 \ S       \   
A-B-----E-----------------------------J-----M-P---------------P-R---------VWX
         \                           / \   L O                 / \       /      
          \                         /   \ /   \               /   \     /
           G-----------------------I     -     \-------------/     \-U-/


A. Clean mash tun, measure mash water.
B. Heat mash water.
C. Assemble grains, scale, grain mill, etc.
D. Crack grains.
E. Mash.
F. Clean up from cracking.
G. Relax.
H. Measure and heat sparge water.
I. Clean and set up sparge equipment.
J. Sparge into boiler.
K. Heat wort to boil.
L. Weigh hops.
M. Boil wort.
N. Clean up sparge equipment.
O. Proof yeast (dry) or take wort sample for yeast starters.
P. Add hops to boil.
Q. Clean and set up wort chiller.
R. Chill wort.
S. Put hydrometer and thermometer in wort.
T. Put away materials.
U. Clean boiler, strainer, etc.
V. Pitch Yeast.
W. Clean wort chiller.
X. Relax.  Relax.  Relax.

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 15:27:40 EDT
From: pryzby%neptune%uunet.UU.NET at hplb.hpl.hp.com (Greg Pryzby)
Subject: beginner's & cat's meow questions

I have been lurking for a few weeks now and just want to thank everyone
out there. The info that is being shared is going to be helpful in the
future (right now alot of it is over my head 8^). 

My first question is concerning the Cat's Meow. When I sent the ps files
to my printer,  I got a U instead of a ' (apostrophe) everywhere,  Q instead
of ??? (I haven't figured out what the Q is suppose to be), have R and S
instead of italics or underlining, and 0 instead of a degree. Anyway,  is it 
a problem with my printer??? 

My first batch is bottled and will (hopefully) be ready for drinking on
the 4th of July. I am already looking forward to my next batch and am
pouring through recipes and trying to determine what I should brew next.
I am open to suggestions. Also any tips that you have would be great.
THe summer issue of zymurgy has an article by Rob Brooke which has some
good pointers,  IHMO. 

Thanks in advance for the info and email is fine. If anyone is interested
in pointers/hints I will compile the data and mail you a synopsis.

peace, 
 greg


Return to table of contents


Date: 27 Jun 91 00:01:38 EDT
From: chip upsal <70731.3556 at compuserve.com>
Subject: cutting & miller

>  "Damn...I cut it twice, and it's STILL too short!"

Or as I say "measure once cut twice"


>Now, here's another--what the * at #$ is "cold filtered"?

Chilling the beer untill a haze is formed then flitering out the haze,
bacteria and some usefull proteens -- these proteens contribuite to head
and body.

>ANd can someone tell me how beers are made non-alcoholic?  I
>think boiling and osmosis are two--am I right?

Yes those are two of the methods I have heard about.


Chip
the carpenter


Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #668, 06/27/91
*************************************
-------

---